I actually find it a lot more interesting than debates on religion, philosophy, music, or pretty much anything else that goes on here on any regular basis.
That being said I've also debated it a few times so yeah I'm not really all excited about it
But I don't think it's any more boring or silly than other debates, and in fact think it is a lot less boring than most
The story takes place in the future, after Man has devastated the planet and survives in the form of beings with magical powers allowing them to influence earth, water and fire. These warring factions are held in uneasy harmony by the Avatar, but the Avatar has disappeared, and Earth lives in a state of constant turmoil caused by the warlike Firebenders.
Are we to imply that this is Ebert misinterpreting the story of the show or is he relating what the movie explains as the story set up? I mean I haven't seen the movie, and I doubt you have, so passer, tell me how ebert is messing up the origin from this paragraph with your knowledge.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The story takes place in the future, after Man has devastated the planet and survives in the form of beings with magical powers allowing them to influence earth, water and fire. These warring factions are held in uneasy harmony by the Avatar, but the Avatar has disappeared, and Earth lives in a state of constant turmoil caused by the warlike Firebenders.
Are we to imply that this is Ebert misinterpreting the story of the show or is he relating what the movie explains as the story set up? I mean I haven't seen the movie, and I doubt you have, so passer, tell me how ebert is messing up the origin from this paragraph with your knowledge.
If he's describing the movie story set up then obviously he's correct. If he's trying to imply that this is what's happening in the original series, he's about 90% wrong. In the series there is no indication that the story takes place in the future or even on Earth (given the strange animals and plants shown), nor is there any indication that the nations fought with each other (or were even in 'uneasy harmony' with each other) until the Fire nation decided to take over the planet about 150 years before the story begins.
He's not clear on whether he's trying to describe the series or the movie in that part of his review. Given that it has mostly nothing to do with the series, I'm going to guess that he's not familiar with the series at all and is only commenting on the movie.
I would say that 100% he is talking about the movie right there, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
I would say that 100% he is talking about the movie right there, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
well he at least spoke to the animation style in the review multiple times, doesn't say much but he has some level of knowledge.
I would say that 100% he is talking about the movie right there, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
well he at least spoke to the animation style in the review multiple times, doesn't say much but he has some level of knowledge.
That can be accomplished by watching the opening credits, the animation style is fairly distinctive.
I would say that 100% he is talking about the movie right there, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
So you glean this knowledge from nothing then? Ok well then thats good, glad to hear it. In the review itself he mentions.
Now for the movie itself. The first fatal decision was to make a live-action film out of material that was born to be anime. The animation of the Nickelodeon TV series drew on the bright colors and "clear line" style of such masters as Miyazaki, and was a pleasure to observe. It's in the very nature of animation to make absurd visual sights more plausible.
Now to be aware of the art style and how it was a "pleasure to observe" can we not imply that he watched an episode or two of the show? But what do I know I'm just reading the review itself and not just making half assed assumptions.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I would say that 100% he is talking about the movie right there, I don't see a reason to believe otherwise.
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
So you glean this knowledge from nothing then? Ok well then thats good, glad to hear it. In the review itself he mentions.
Now for the movie itself. The first fatal decision was to make a live-action film out of material that was born to be anime. The animation of the Nickelodeon TV series drew on the bright colors and "clear line" style of such masters as Miyazaki, and was a pleasure to observe. It's in the very nature of animation to make absurd visual sights more plausible.
Now to be aware of the art style and how it was a "pleasure to observe" can we not imply that he watched an episode or two of the show? But what do I know I'm just reading the review itself and not just making half assed assumptions.
You know the saying, "When you use half your ass to make an assumption, you make an ass out of half your ass."
a plate of hot pancakes with a little butter and some syrup
side of sausage links
huge glass of orange juice
fux
Organichu on
0
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
Let me repeat - knowing the animation style is not an indication that he knows the series, just that he's watched the opening credits, perhaps a single episode. I wouldn't consider knowing what it looks like to be 'passing knowledge' of the series.
And yes, I read the review, thank you.
Now calm down Preacher, I don't know what you're getting upset about here.
The story takes place in the future, after Man has devastated the planet and survives in the form of beings with magical powers allowing them to influence earth, water and fire. These warring factions are held in uneasy harmony by the Avatar, but the Avatar has disappeared, and Earth lives in a state of constant turmoil caused by the warlike Firebenders.
Are we to imply that this is Ebert misinterpreting the story of the show or is he relating what the movie explains as the story set up? I mean I haven't seen the movie, and I doubt you have, so passer, tell me how ebert is messing up the origin from this paragraph with your knowledge.
If he's describing the movie story set up then obviously he's correct. If he's trying to imply that this is what's happening in the original series, he's about 90% wrong. In the series there is no indication that the story takes place in the future or even on Earth (given the strange animals and plants shown), nor is there any indication that the nations fought with each other (or were even in 'uneasy harmony' with each other) until the Fire nation decided to take over the planet about 150 years before the story begins.
He's not clear on whether he's trying to describe the series or the movie in that part of his review. Given that it has mostly nothing to do with the series, I'm going to guess that he's not familiar with the series at all and is only commenting on the movie.
why on earth would he even talk about the series even if he had knowledge of it in the review for the movie?
Posts
The stains didn't come out very well, did they? Water's one of the worst things you can mix henna powder with.
Still, it's cool that you've got past experience with it. Henna's fun to play with.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I actually find it a lot more interesting than debates on religion, philosophy, music, or pretty much anything else that goes on here on any regular basis.
That being said I've also debated it a few times so yeah I'm not really all excited about it
But I don't think it's any more boring or silly than other debates, and in fact think it is a lot less boring than most
It means I have eye-AIDS, doesn't it.
Are we to imply that this is Ebert misinterpreting the story of the show or is he relating what the movie explains as the story set up? I mean I haven't seen the movie, and I doubt you have, so passer, tell me how ebert is messing up the origin from this paragraph with your knowledge.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I love throat fucking him, its like a vagina but with a man.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean honestly
Well to be fair the fact that Preacher's penis looks like a rat gnawing on an inside-out sausage has nothing to do with Ebert
You know how nerds are with their nerdy things.
If he's describing the movie story set up then obviously he's correct. If he's trying to imply that this is what's happening in the original series, he's about 90% wrong. In the series there is no indication that the story takes place in the future or even on Earth (given the strange animals and plants shown), nor is there any indication that the nations fought with each other (or were even in 'uneasy harmony' with each other) until the Fire nation decided to take over the planet about 150 years before the story begins.
He's not clear on whether he's trying to describe the series or the movie in that part of his review. Given that it has mostly nothing to do with the series, I'm going to guess that he's not familiar with the series at all and is only commenting on the movie.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I think it looks cool
I have watched a little bit of the show
it seems okay except I only want to watch the episodes that advance the story and not the wacky hijinks
I DON'T WANT A FIRE
it's not gonna cause a...
IM GONNA BUY A NEW STOVE
I tend to agree with you on this. Preacher's idea was that he's trusting Ebert partly because it would seem, to Preacher at least, that the guy has a 'passing knowledge' of the series, which is unlikely.
Face Twit Rav Gram
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Cannot focus at work.
:l
Yeah, and then the outrage when it turns out it does suck, as predicted... or drooling and fawning when it turns out to be mediocre.
well he at least spoke to the animation style in the review multiple times, doesn't say much but he has some level of knowledge.
Pretty sure you can't become a time period, sorry.
Face Twit Rav Gram
Is this the part where you volunteer to help them move the old stove out and then receive a free stove which only requires a new element and clip?
http://io9.com/5576734/computer-program-deciphers-a-dead-language-that-mystified-linguists
And here I am struggling with Arabic.
YOU NEVER LET ME BE ANYTHING
That can be accomplished by watching the opening credits, the animation style is fairly distinctive.
Face Twit Rav Gram
So you glean this knowledge from nothing then? Ok well then thats good, glad to hear it. In the review itself he mentions.
Now to be aware of the art style and how it was a "pleasure to observe" can we not imply that he watched an episode or two of the show? But what do I know I'm just reading the review itself and not just making half assed assumptions.
pleasepaypreacher.net
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I don't need two stoves.
Stolen from reddit but still awesome.
a plate of hot pancakes with a little butter and some syrup
side of sausage links
huge glass of orange juice
fux
And yes, I read the review, thank you.
Now calm down Preacher, I don't know what you're getting upset about here.
Face Twit Rav Gram
why on earth would he even talk about the series even if he had knowledge of it in the review for the movie?
in a manila envelope
padded, of course
I get the 1337 part and that the answer is 42, but I feel like I'm missing more intricate parts of the joke.
Daaaamn that is a misleading headline. Interesting article once you get past the bullshit that comprises the first half or so though.
Gotcha. Okay then, resume being annoyed at them.
Because if people knew beer was great for growing children, it would upset the natural order.
When did you talk to my mother on the phone? How did you get her number?!
TONIGHT
WE GET OUR BORDERLANDS ON